Papers on Social Representations
Volume 20, pages 2.1-2.21 (2011)
Peer Reviewed Online Journal
ISSN 1021-5573
© 2011 The Authors
[http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
Integration and Multiculturalism: Ways towards Social
Solidarity
JOHN W. BERRY
Queen's University
The first two parts of the paper lay out some background ideas about the nature
of plural societies, and about the various ways that groups and individuals
engage interculturally within them (see Berry, 2007, for more detail). The third
part examines more closely the meaning of integration and multiculturalism,
using concepts and findings from cross-cultural and social psychology. A final
section considers the possibility of rooting social solidarity on these concepts.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.2
Integration can take place in the context of relations between nation states
(internationally), between groups (within culturally-diverse nation states), and between
individuals (who are members of these collective entities). All three levels can be
examined using social science concepts and methods; and they can also be studied using
psychological ones. This paper focuses on the psychological (individual) and cultural
(group) dimensions of integration at the latter two levels, while not losing sight of the
broader international political, economic and sociocultural contexts within which
integration phenomena develop and are expressed.
PLURAL SOCIETIES
This broader context is the worldwide existence of culturally plural societies, many of
which are products of international phenomena such as colonisation, slavery and refugee
and immigration movements. Culturally plural societies are those in which a number of
different cultural or ethnic groups reside together within a shared political and social
framework (Brooks, 2002). All contemporary societies are now culturally plural; no
society is made up of people having one culture, one language, and one identity (Sam &
Berry, 2006). There has been a long-standing assumption that such cultural diversity
within societies will eventually disappear. This is because contact between cultures is a
creative and reactive process, generating new customs and values, and stimulating
resistance, rather than simply leading to cultural domination and homogenization (see
Berry, 2009).
The issue of the continuing reality of cultural pluralism, and the assumption of
eventual cultural homogenisation is one that is central to our discussion. As phrased by
Kymlicka (2001) “Can liberal pluralism be exported?” This question may be captured in
a rather bald way Figure 1. There are two contrasting, usually implicit, models of
cultural group relations in plural societies and institutions. In one (the mainstreamminority
on the left), the view is that there is (or should be) one dominant society, on the
margins of which are various minority groups; these groups typically remain there, unless
they are incorporated as indistinguishable components into the mainstream. In the other
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.3
(the multicultural on the right) view, there is a national social framework of institutions
(the larger society) that accommodates the interests and needs of the numerous cultural
groups, and which are fully incorporated as ethnocultural groups into this national
framework. In dealing with this question, I use the concept of the larger society (Berry,
1999). This refers to the civic arrangement in a plural society within which all
ethnocultural groups (dominant and non-dominant, indigenous and immigrant) attempt to
carry out their lives. It is constantly changing, through negotiation, compromise and
mutual accommodations. It surely does not represent the way of life of the
“mainstream”, which is typically that preferred by the dominant group, and which
became established in the public institutions that they created. All groups in such a
conception of a larger society are ethnocultural groups (rather than “minorities”), who
possess cultures and who have equal cultural and other rights, regardless of their size or
power. In such complex plural societies, there is no assumption that some groups should
assimilate or become absorbed into another group. Hence, the conception is not a
unidimensional one, but multidimensional; and intercultural relations are not viewed as
unidirectional, but as mutual and reciprocal.
Both implicit models refer to possible arrangements in plural societies: the
mainstream-minority view is that cultural pluralism is a problem and should be reduced,
even eliminated; the multicultural view is that cultural pluralism is a resource, and
inclusiveness should be nurtured with supportive policies and programmes.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.4
INTERCULTURAL STRATEGIES
What is meant by the phrase intercultural strategies is the core idea that groups and
individuals (both dominant and non-dominant) living in plural societies engage each
other in a number of different ways (Berry, 1974, 1980). Whether it is the colonizer or
the colonized, immigrants or those already settled, individuals and groups hold
preferences with respect to the particular ways in which they wish to engage their own
and other groups. When examined among non-dominant ethnocultural groups that are in
contact with a dominant group, these preferences have become known as acculturation
strategies. When examined among the dominant group, and when the views held are
about how non-dominant groups should acculturate, they have been called acculturation
expectations (Berry, 2003). Finally, when examined among the dominant group, and
when the views held are about how they themselves should change to accommodate the
other groups in their society, the strategy is assessed with a concept called multicultural
ideology (Berry, Kalin & Taylor, 1977).
All three sets of views are based on the same two underlying issues: 1. the degree
to which there is a desire to maintain the group’s culture and identity; and 2. the degree to
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.5
which there is a desire to engage in daily interactions with other ethnocultural groups in
the larger society, including the dominant one. Underlying these two issues is the idea is
that not all groups and individuals seek to engage in intercultural relations in the same
way (Berry, 1980, 1984); there are large variations in how people seek to relate to each
other, including various alternatives to the assumption of eventual assimilation. They
have become called strategies rather than attitudes because they consist of both attitudes
and behaviors (that is, they include both the preferences and the actual outcomes) that are
exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters.
Four strategies have been derived from these two basic issues facing all
acculturating peoples: a relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and
identity; and a relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger
society along with other ethnocultural groups. These two issues are presented in Figure 2,
where they are presented as independent of (ie., orthogonal to) of each other. Their
independence has been empirically demonstrated in a number of studies (eg., BenShalom
& Horenczyk, 2003; Ryder, Alden & Paulhus, 2000).
Figure 2 . Intercultural Strategies of Ethnocultural Groups and the Larger Society
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.6
These two issues can be responded to on attitudinal dimensions, represented by
bipolar arrows. For purposes of presentation only, generally positive or negative
orientations to these issues intersect to define four strategies. These strategies carry
different names, depending on which ethnocultural groups (the dominant or nondominant)
are being considered. From the point of view of non-dominant groups (on the
left of Figure 1), when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek
daily interaction with other cultures, the Assimilation strategy is defined. In contrast,
when individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same
time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the Separation alternative is defined.
When there is an interest in both maintaining ones original culture, while in daily
interactions with other groups, Integration is the option. In this case, there is some degree
of cultural integrity maintained, while at the same time seeking, as a member of an
ethnocultural group, to participate as an integral part of the larger society. Finally, when
there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of enforced
cultural loss), and little interest in having relations with others (often for reasons of
exclusion or discrimination) then Marginalization is defined.
This presentation was based on the assumption that non-dominant groups and
their individual members have the freedom to choose how they want to acculturate. This,
of course, is not always the case. When the dominant group enforces certain forms of
acculturation, or constrains the choices of non-dominant groups or individuals, then a
third element becomes necessary. This is the power of the dominant group to influence
the acculturation strategies available to, and used by, the non-dominant groups
(introduced by Berry, 1974). As a result, there is a mutual, reciprocal process through
which both groups arrive at strategies that will work in a particular society, and in a
particular setting. For example, Integration can only be chosen and successfully pursued
by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its
orientation towards cultural diversity. Thus a mutual accommodation is required for
Integration to be attained, involving the acceptance by both groups of the right of all
groups to live as culturally different peoples. This strategy requires non-dominant groups
to adopt the basic values of the larger society, while at the same time the dominant group
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.7
must be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health, labor) to better
meet the needs of all groups now living together in the plural society.
These two basic issues were initially approached from the point of view of the
non-dominant ethnocultural groups. However, the original anthropological definition of
acculturation clearly established that both groups in contact would become acculturated
(Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936). The concern for the role that the dominant group
played in the emergence of these strategies (Berry, 1974) led to a conceptualization
portrayed on the right side of Figure 1. Assimilation when sought by the non-dominant
acculturating group is termed the Melting Pot. When Separation is forced by the
dominant group it is Segregation. Marginalization, when imposed by the dominant group
it is Exclusion. Finally, for Integration, when cultural diversity is a feature of the society
as a whole, including all the various ethnocultural groups, it is called Multiculturalism.
With the use of this framework, comparisons can be made between individuals and their
ethoncultural groups, and between non-dominant peoples and the larger society within
which they are acculturating. The ideologies and policies of the dominant group
constitute an important element of ethnic relations research (see Berry, et al, 1977), while
the preferences of non-dominant peoples are a core feature in acculturation research,
(Berry et al., 1989). Bourhis and colleagues ( Bourhis, Moise, Senecal & Perrault,1997;
Montreuil & Bourhis, 2004) have recently expanded on this interest, examining situations
where the two parties in contact may have different views about how to go about their
mutual acculturation. Inconsistencies and conflicts between these various acculturation
preferences are sources of difficulty, usually for acculturating individuals, but can also
for members of the dominant group. Generally, when acculturation experiences cause
problems for acculturating individuals, or conflict between acculturating groups, we
observe the phenomenon of acculturative stress (Berry & Ataca, 2007).
Numerous studies with immigrant, indigenous and ethnocultural populations have
shown these four orientations to be present in individuals engaged in intercultural
relations (Sam & Berry, 2006). One example is research with immigrant youth (Berry,
Phinney, Sam & Vedder, 2006). This study examined the acculturation and adaptation
of immigrant youth (aged 13 to 18 years) settled in13 societies (N= 5366), as well as a
sample of national youth (N= 2631). The countries of settlement included the traditional
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.8
“settler” societies (such as Australia, Canada USA), and others that have more recent
experiences of immigration (such as France, Germany, Norway, Sweden). The countries
of origin included major sending societies (such as China, India, Mexico,Turkey,
Vietnam). Immigrant youth and their parents were interviewed in the major cities of
settlement, along with their national peers and their parents. Variables in the study
included those dealing with intercultural relations, and the adaptations achieved by the
immigrant youth (see description of variables below). The study was guided by three core
questions: how do immigrant youth deal with the process of acculturation; how well do
they adapt; and are there important relationships between how they acculturate and how
well they adapt? A first question was the existence of variations in how youth
acculturate. We assessed intercultural relations, including the four acculturation
strategies (AIMS); cultural identities; language knowledge and use; and peer relations (all
distinguishing between ethnic and national orientations); and family relationship values
(family obligations and adolescent rights). Cluster analysis of these intercultural variables
produced four distinct acculturation profiles, which we termed integration, ethnic,
national and diffuse. These appear to correspond well to the four ways of acculturating
outlined in Figure 2.
A second example, with a focus on members of the larger society, comes from a
series of national surveys in Canada (and internationally) that explore the views of the
dominant population. To explore empirically this more complex view of intercultural
relations in plural societies, the attitudes held by various groups that constitute the larger
Canadian society have been examined in a series of studies over the past 30 years. Some
of these were national surveys, with large representative samples of the Canadian
population (Berry, Kalin & Taylor, 1977, n= 1849; Berry & Kalin, 1995, n= 3325). In the
first, respondents were interviewed in their homes; in the second, the interviews took
place on the telephone.
The acculturation strategies espoused by members of the larger society have been
examined in these surveys. In the first (Berry et al., 1977), we created items to reflect
respondents’ acculturation expectations about how the acculturation of others should take
place, using the two issues underlying the strategies framework: cultural maintenance and
equitable participation. Initial analyses indicated that, rather than there being four
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.9
distinct acculturation expectations, the items scaled into a unidimensional construct, with
preferences for Multiculturalism (i.e., Integration) anchoring one end of the dimension,
and the other items anchoring the other end. This unidimensional structure may well be
due to the high endorsement rate of Integration and the low endorsement rate for the
alternatives; when attitudes are very positive for one way of viewing acculturation, and
there is a common rejection of the other three ways, this unilinear structure is likely to
result.
We termed this scale Multicultural Ideology. This concept attempts to
encompass the general and fundamental view that cultural diversity is good for a society
and for its individual members (i.e., there is a high value placed on cultural maintenance),
and that such diversity should be shared and accommodated in an equitable way (i.e.,
there is a high value on contact and participation). Moreover, some items express a
willingness to change one’s cultural ways in order to accommodate those of other groups.
Items were developed that assessed these views, both positively (e.g., “Canada
would be a better place if members of ethnic groups would keep their own way of life
alive;” “There is a lot that Canadians can gain from friendly relations with immigrants”)
and negatively ( e.g., for Assimilation: ”It is best for Canada if all immigrants forgot their
cultural background as soon as possible;” “People who come to Canada should change
their behaviour to be more like us;” and for Segregation, “If members of ethnic groups
want to keep their own culture, they should keep it to themselves, and not bother the rest
of us”). Items also expressed the basic ideas that cultural diversity is a resource and is
something to be valued by a society (e.g., “A society that has a variety of ethnic groups is
more able to tackle new problems as they occur”).
Our results generally support its construct validity (e.g., Berry et al., 1977; Berry
& Kalin, 1995); internal consistency is high (.80), and it forms part of a complex set of
relationships with other conceptually similar scales (r= -.42 with ethnocentrism; r= +. 56
with tolerance; r= +. 55 with perceived consequences of immigration). However,
conceptually it is explicitly related more to the idea that diversity is a resource for a
society, and that all groups, including the dominant ones, need to adapt to each other in
order for there to be harmonious intercultural relations in culturally diverse groups.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.10
Results show that a large majority of Canadians endorse multicultural ideology as
the way for ethnocultural and immigrant groups to relate to each other. In the first
national survey, 63.9% of respondents were on the positive side of the scale (mean of
4.51 on a 7- point scale), and this rose to 69.3 % (mean of 4.59) in the second survey.
Overall, we can say that Canadians support this way of acculturating by a large, and
growing, margin; we can also say that there is a rather happy coinciding of public opinion
with public policy!
Variations in support for this ideology follow the characteristics of respondents
that were noted earlier: respondents of French origin who live in Quebec, those with
lower levels of education and income have lower acceptance than other groups.
However, those of French origin living outside Quebec have a higher (in fact the highest)
level of support. We interpret this as being due to the different perceptions of
multiculturalism among French origin Canadians living outside and inside Quebec:
outside Quebec, multicultural policies and programs that promote cultural maintenance
are seen as a support for the continuity of French culture and identity, whereas inside
Quebec, they are seen as supporting the cultural continuity of other groups, and possibly
undermining the majority position of French Canadians in “their own” province (Berry,
1996).
Following on these earlier distinctions, the meaning of integration has recently
become diversified into a number of sub-varieties. In one core paper (Lafromboise,
Coleman & Gerton, 1993) the term biculturalism was employed to refer to this way of
living with two set of cultural knowledge and competencies. These authors proposed that
there were five different ways (‘models’) in which individuals deal with living with two
cultures. The first is the assimilation model, in which individuals become absorbed into
the dominant cultural group, losing much of their heritage culture at the same time. The
second is the acculturation model, which proposes that individuals will lose some of their
heritage culture (as for assimilation), but will “always be identified as a member of the
minority culture” (p. 397). [This use of the term acculturation is clearly different from
more general way in which the concept has been presented in this paper]. A third is the
alternation model, in which individuals are assumed “to know and understand two
different cultures. It also supposes that an individual can alter his or her behaviour to fit a
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.11
particular social context” (p.399). A fourth is the multicultural model, which “promotes a
pluralistic approach... and addresses the feasibility of cultures maintaining distinctive
identities while individuals from one culture work with those of other cultures to serve
common national or economic needs” ( p. 401). [This model approximates the meanings
of integration and multiculturalism presented in figures 1 and 2]. The fifth model is
fusion, in which “cultures sharing an economic, political or geographic space will fuse
together until they are indistinguishable, to form a new culture” (p. 401).
Building on these distinctions, the notion of bicultural competence was
introduced by LaFromboise et. al. (1993), which is founded on the notion that
“individuals living in two cultures may find the experience to be more beneficial than
living a mono-cultural life. The key to psychological wellbeing may well be the ability to
develop and maintain competence in both cultures” (p. 402). The six components of
bicultural competence are: knowledge of cultural beliefs and values of both cultures:
positive attitudes towards both the majority and minority groups; bicultural efficacy
(confidence that one can live effectively in both cultures); communication ability (in both
languages); role repertoire (knowledge of culturally appropriate behaviours); and a sense
of being grounded (having a well developed social support system). In essence,
bicultural competence refers to the attainment of cognitive, affective motivational
qualities that permit successful functioning in both cultures in contact.
A second perspective has been advanced by Benet-Martinez and her colleagues
(Benet- Martinez, Lee, Lee & Morris, 2002; Benet-Martinez & Hariatos, 2002; BenetMartinez,
Lee & Leu, 2006). She has developed the concept of bicultural identity
integration (BII) drawing to a large extent on the concept of cultural identity (Phinney,
2000; Phinney & Devich-Navarro,1997) and applying it to situations where an individual
attempts to sort out two or more possible cultural identities. The concept refers to “the
degree to which a bicultural individual perceives his/her two cultural identities to be
compatible or conflictual” (Benet- Martinez & Hariatos, 2005, p 1015). BII is not a
uniform phenomenon, but has two distinct components: perceptions of distance (vs.
overlap), and perceptions of conflict (vs. harmony) between a person’s two cultural
identities. In a study of Chinese Americans, distance scores were related positively to the
number of years a person had lived in a Chinese culture, and negatively to length of
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.12
residence in the USA; there were no relationships with the conflict score. With respect to
acculturation strategies, a preference for separation (and to a lesser extent,
marginalisation) was related to the distance score, while a preference for assimilation and
integration were negatively related. There were no relationships between the four
acculturation strategies and conflict.
A third recent perspective has bee developed by Phinney and Alipuria (2006),
using the concept of multiple social categorisation. This concept refers to the common
experience of simultaneously being (and identifying with) two social groups of different
kinds, such as being female (gender) and Canadian (nationality). However, many
individuals have links to two groups of the same kind, for example being Italian and
Canadian (as in dual nationality or dual ethnicity). As noted by Phinney and Alipuria
(2006, p. 211), “The issue faced by these individuals is not that of balancing the
importance or relevance of two distinct characteristics of the self, but rather that of
integrating or otherwise managing an internal complexity involving two potentially
conflicting, often enriching, parts of one’s ethnic, racial, or cultural self.... These
individuals can claim membership in two or more groups but are sometimes not accepted
by others as a member of either”. The authors refer to such persons as multicultural, and
the situation as one of hybridity.
Research on multiple categorization has examined the ways in which individuals
categorize, label themselves. Phinney and Alipuria (2006) have identified four ways in
which those with a ‘multiracial’ heritage may identify themselves. First, an individual
may identify with only one of the two possible groups. [This is the situation when
individuals seek either to assimilate or to separate, in the terms used in Figure 2]. Second
is to create a new category, in which individuals develop and name a new mixed way to
refer to themselves [cf. the integration concept in Figure 2]. Third, individuals may claim
membership in both groups and switch between them [cf, the alternation model proposed
by LaFromboise et al, 1993]. And fourth, individuals may think of themselves, not
mainly in group terms, but as individuals [cf, Bourhis et al, 1997 concept of
individualism], or in other personal ways. Phinney and Alipuria (2006) note that the
setting (social, political, economic) in which people operate may have a strong influence
on how multiracial individuals multiply categorise themselves.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.13
In some contrast, multicultural individuals differ from multiracial people, because
they often have choices open to them that are not available to ‘racialised’ individuals.
They usually have the freedom to identify with one, the other, both or neither of their two
cultures. It is also possible that such persons may create and adopt a completely new
cultural identity that is not linked to either of their two cultures.
INTEGRATION: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
From these recent research programmes, we can see the evolving complexity of the
meaning of the term integration, both as a process and as a set of alternative outcomes.
Following is my attempt to draw together these various threads into a more
comprehensive picture, at both the individual/psychological and group/cultural levels.
Psychological Level Meaning
With respect to the psychological meaning, I draw on the well-established distinction in
psychology between process, competence and performance (Sternberg & Grigorenko,
2004). Processes are those psychological features of individuals that are the fundamental
ways in which people deal with their day-to-day experiences, such as perception,
learning, and categorisation. Competencies are those features of individuals that develop
with experience, such as abilities, attitudes and values. Performances are those activities
of individuals that are expressed as behaviour, such as carrying out projects, and
engaging in political action.
Processes. It is assumed that psychological processes are universal; that is, all human
beings everywhere have these basic features, regardless of culture or experience (Berry,
Poortinga, Segall & Dasen, 2002). Competencies are built up on the basis of the
interaction of underlying processes and peoples’ encounters with the outside world.
Performances are those expressions of competencies that are appropriate to, or are
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.14
triggered by, particular contexts. For example, all immigrants have the process available
to learn the language of their new society. The competence in the language will depend
on a number of factors, including opportunities to learn it (through formal instruction or
informal social interaction). The actual performance will depend, not only on the
competence, but also on a host of situational factors, such as the language of the
interlocutor, and the requirement to speak the new language in any particular situation
(such as at work, or in one’s ethnocultural community). Table 1 provides these
distinctions on the horizontal dimension.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
COMPONENT
PSYCHOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
Process
(Underlying)
Competence
(Developed)
Performance
(Expressed)
Affective Liking, identifying Values, attitudes Social action
Cognitive Culture Learning,
Culture memory
Cultural knowledge,
Abilities
Work performance,
Actions
Table 1. Psychological Components of Integration
Applying these distinctions to the concept of integration, we may identify two of the core
processes involved (Berry, 1992, 1997). First is learning, using the processes of
enculturation and acculturation; individuals have the capacity to acquire the main features
of their societies including the language, norms, values, skills important to their survival.
Second, is memory in order to retain those features that have been learned in either
cultural community. The converse of memory is forgetting, in which some of these
features are selectively cast aside.
Integration involves the maximal learning and memory by individuals and minimal
forgetting of earlier-established ways of living. Assimilation involves maximal learning
of features of the dominant society by non-dominant individuals, combined with minimal
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.15
memory for (maximal forgetting of) features of one’s heritage culture. Separation
involves minimal learning for features of the new society, combined with maximal
retention of features of one’s heritage culture. Marginalisation involves the combination
of minimal learning of the new culture, and maximal forgetting of one’s heritage culture.
Competencies. Another common set of distinctions in psychology is between affective
(emotional), and cognitive (intellectual) features of psychological functioning (e.g, Ward,
Bochner & Furnham, 2001). This distinction alerts us to the differences in the kinds of
competencies that people may develop.
Affective competencies include such aspects as attitudes towards one’s own group and
other groups, identities with both groups, and values of both groups. Integration involves
the positive evaluation of, identification with and acceptance of the values of both
groups. Assimilation involves positive attitudes towards the dominant group (and the
rejection of one’s own group), identification with the dominant group but not with one’s
heritage group, and acceptance of the values of the dominant group and not of one’s
heritage group.
Cognitive competencies refers cultural knowledge about how to carry out daily activities.
These can range from some rather mundane abilities (such as knowing how to use the
phone or transport systems) to much more complex sets of knowledge (such as the laws
pertaining to taxation or hate speech). Once again, integration involves knowledge of
both sets, assimilation and separation of one set, and marginalisation of neither.
Performances. As noted above, not everything a person is capable of doing is actually
carried out; the stage needs to be set appropriately for any competence to be performed.
Attitudes, identities and values may or may not be expressed depending on the social
context. Similarly, motivation to acquire a particular competence may be enhanced or
suppressed by the reward or punishment features of the context. And skills that have been
acquired (for example to speak, or to engage in social interactions) may be advantageous
for a person in some situations but not in others. Integration involves performing in
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.16
settings where both sets of competencies are valued and allowed; assimilation and
separation in places where only one set is accepted, and marginalisation, where neither
set is allowed, or even supressed.
Cultural level meaning
The cultural level of integration was referred to as multiculturalism in Figure 2. This
vision of how to live in plural societies incorporates two basic social processes. The first
is the acceptance of the value of cultural diversity for a society by all constituent cultural
communities. Such diversity is to be seen as a resource, to be prized and nurtured. The
second is the promotion of equitable participation by all groups in the larger society. All
groups have the right to access all aspects of the larger society, including culturallyappropriate
education, work, health care, and justice. These two components are the
basis of the Canadian multicultural policy (see Berry 1984, for a psychological analysis),
as well as of the two dimensions that underlie the intercultural strategies framework
(Figure 2).
In order to accomplish these two goals, multiculturalism involves social change to
meet the needs of all the groups living together in the plural society. All groups should
be prepared to constantly reassess their ways of living together, and to engage in
compromise. That is, attaining the multicultural vision requires mutual accommodation,
rather than change on the part of only one of the groups. This accommodation requires
that the institutions of the dominant group/larger society should evolve, so that the needs
of all (dominant and non-dominant) groups can be met. It also requires that the nondominant
groups adopt the basic (but evolving) values of the larger society, and to adapt
to the existing (but evolving) social institutions and structures.
In 2005, the European Union adopted some “Common Basic Principles for
Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU.” The basic requirement is for mutual
accommodation, in which all groups and individuals in contact need to change culturally
and psychologically in order to achieve harmony in these plural societies. Among the 11
principles, one article accepts the right to cultural maintenance: “The practice of diverse
cultures and religions is guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and must be
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.17
safeguarded, unless practices conflict with other inviolable European rights or with
national law.” Another promotes participation: “Frequent interaction between immigrants
and Member States citizens is a fundamental mechanism for integration. Shared forums,
intercultural dialogue, education about immigrants and immigrant cultures, and
stimulating living conditions in urban environments enhance the interactions between
immigrants and Member State citizens.” Further: “Access for immigrants to institutions,
as well as to private goods and services, on a basis equal to national citizens and in a nondiscriminatory
way is a critical foundation for better integration.” And a third notes the
importance of learning the national language: “Basic knowledge of the host society’s
language, history, and institutions is indispensable to integration; enabling immigrants to
acquire this basic knowledge is essential to successful integration.”
The cultural level meaning of integration corresponds with the psychological level
in a number of ways. First, they both are based on the acceptance of the two underlying
values of diversity and equity. If there is diversity without the acceptance of equity,
separation/segregation results; if there is equity without the acceptance of diversity, then
assimilation/melting pot result; if there is acceptance of neither value, then
marginalisation/exclusion result. Only when there is a balance between the two values,
within individuals and in society at large, can personal integration and societal
multiculturalism be achieved.
Second, the process of change is inherent in the two levels. Intercultural relations
take place over time, during which individuals explore, learn, forget, adapt and eventually
settle into a preferred way of living. Similarly, societies evolve their positions over time,
often beginning with a preference for an ethnically-homogeneous nation state, then
coming to realise that this is not a realistic vision. Alternatives are then explored,
sometimes with a view to segregating or excluding others from full and equitable
participation in the public life of the larger society. Others may seek to balance the
interests and needs of all the cultural communities, while still privileging those of the
dominant cultural community.
ACHIEVING SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.18
Armed with these concepts and empirical findings it may be possible to achieve social
solidarity among the culturally diverse peoples living in contemporary plural societies.
I have argued that it is possible to achieve integration in a person’s psychological life,
based on the underlying commonality of psychological processes, and on the
compatibility of cognitive and affective domains of behaviour. I have also argued that
multicultural policy arrangements that reflect the extant cultural diversity and a
willingness to accept equity can (and have been) be achieved in some societies. It is thus
a possibility in all societies if there is sufficient public goodwill, and there are public
policies (as in the EU) to promote it. The integration/multiculturalism option may serve
as a way forward, in which there is a public construal of such change as a ‘win-win’
situation.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.19
REFERENCES
Banting, K. & Kymlicka, W. (2004). Do multiculturalism policies erode the welfare
state? In P. Van Parijs, (Ed.), Cultural Diversity Versus Economic Solidarity
(pp.227-284).Brussels: Editions De Boeck Université.
Berry, J.W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism. Culture Learning, 2, 17-
22.
Berry, J.W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.),
Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings. (pp.9-25). Boulder:
Westview Press.
Berry, J.W. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16, 353-370.
Berry, J.W. (1992). Berry, J.W. (1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society.
International Migration, 30, 69-85.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, 5-68.
Berry, J.W. (1999). Aboriginal cultural identity. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 19,
1-36.
Berry, J.W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615-631.
Berry, J.W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. BallsOrganista,
& G. Marin (Eds). Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement
and application (pp. 17-37). Washington: APA Books.
Berry, J.W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712.
Berry, J.W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in
Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Research, 30, 719-734.
Berry, J.W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations. 32, 328-336.
Berry, J.W. & Ataca, B, (2007) Cultural factors in stress. In Encyclopedia of Stress (pp.
672-678).Oxford: Elsivier.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.20
Berry, J.W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D.M. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in
Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and services.
Berry, J.W. Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L. & Vedder, P. (Eds.) (2006). Immigrant youth in
cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national
contexts. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bourhis, R., Moise, C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive
acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of
Psychology. 32, 369-386.
Brooks, S. (Ed.) (2002). The challenge of cultural pluralism. Westport:Praeger
George, U. (2006). Immigrant integration: Simple questions, complex answers.
Canadian Diversity, Special issue on Integration of Newcommers; International
Approaches. 5, 3-6.
Government of Canada (1971). Multicultural Policy: Statement to House of Commons.
Ottawa.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Western political theory and ethnic relations in eastern Europe. In
W. Kymlicka & M. Opalski (Eds.) Can liberal pluralism be exported? (pp.13-
103). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Phinney, J. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Phinney, J. & Alipuria, (2006). Multiple social categorization and identity among
multiracial, multiethnic and multicultural individuals: Processes and implications
In R. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.) (2006), Multiple social categorization:
Processes, models, and applications (pp. 211-238). New York: Psychology Press.
Phinney, J., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among
African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 7, 3-32.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M.J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
Ryder, A., Alden, L. & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49-65.
JW Berry Integration and Multiculturalism
Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21 (2011) [http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/]
2.21
Sam, D.L. & Berry, J.W. (2006) (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of acculturation
psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of
intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 124-147). Newbury Park: Sage.
Ward, C. Bochner, S & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London:
Routledge.
JOHN W. BERRY (PhD., University of Edinburgh) is Professor Emeritus of Psychology
at Queen's University, Canada. He received Honorary Doctorates from the University of
Athens, and Université de Geneve (2001). He has published over 30 books in the areas of
cross-cultural, social and cognitive psychology with various colleagues. These include a
textbook (Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications, 3rd
edition, Cambridge
University Press, 2011; Handbook of Acculturation Psychology, Cambridge, 2006; and
Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition, 2006, LEA). He is a Fellow of the Canadian
Psychological Association, the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, the
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, and the International Academy
for Intercultural Research, from which he received a Lifetime Contribution Award (in
2005). His main research interests are in the areas of acculturation and intercultural
relations, with an emphasis on applications to immigration, educational and health policy.
EMAIL: berryj@king.igs.net.
Copyright of Papers on Social Representations is the property of Papers on Social Representations and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.